New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery

BrianV · Jan 22, 2022

Jackov Altraids said:
To claim BPS, you had to be an active farmer.

The more I read about ELMS, it seems that they wish to exclude active farmers.

The current scheme shows no initiative, it does nothing for farming and can therefore be in no way be considered sustainable. It fails as a SFI.

I just find it very sad that a once in a lifetime opportunity to make British agriculture successful, financially and environmentally, is being wasted.

Virtually all of the English farming support has been hijacked by environmentalists with little or no interest in feeding our nation or sustaining English farmers, what do these idiots care if food becomes expensive to the poorest in our society just as long as they get their jollies at the weekends!

Anybody who thinks Defra are capable of administering this monster of a scheme & be able to get the payments out on time is living in a fairy tale land, they struggle to cope with the very simple schemes we have at the moment, this is quite obviously heading for a complete disaster with only one loser, us the food producers of our country!

DrWazzock · Jan 22, 2022

As a lot of these schemes only pay for “income foregone” or for costs associated with them, then really you might just as well carry on cropping as that way you reduce overhead.
The fact other countries food production is in effect still directly subsidised is a worry, but that a lot of the kind of subsidy just leads to flab, complacency and inefficiency in the system as well as too many fingers in the pie.
I never did understand the merit of the tenant / landlord system where one or the other expects to be subsidised by the taxpayer. Surely there had to be some realism that if you are expecting two incomes rather than one from every acre then you either need more acres or you each need to take less. I don’t go rushing into the land agents office offering £150 an acre for crap land then expect to be bailed out by the taxpayer, but plenty do it would seem. It’s madness in my view.

Humble Village Farmer · Jan 22, 2022

midlandslad said:
I think the point is that the payment finds its way to the landlord either directly or via an inflated rent.

Unless it's an aha

Jackov Altraids · Jan 22, 2022

ajd132 said:
You don’t have to even grow anything to claim bps. It’s got nothing to do with farming and everything to do with land ownership.
I agree about the SFI, I was originally quite encouraged by it, but it seems to be becoming so complicated that’s it’s not worth the time of day, and the way we are farming means we wouldhave to change very little to get the full amount.

That is the crux of the matter.
Has countryside stewardship been successful?.....
I think it has to a large degree.
ELMS is it's replacement and it doesn't even seem worth while for those already doing these options to claim so how the hell is it going to tempt anyone to change.

My fear this is design rather than accident.
All the money is planned for environmental groups and farmers can produce cheap food by being 'unsustainable' while those trying to farm sustainably go out of business.

BrianV · Jan 22, 2022

DrWazzock said:
As a lot of these schemes only pay for “income foregone” or for costs associated with them, then really you might just as well carry on cropping as that way you reduce overhead.
The fact other countries food production is in effect still directly subsidised is a worry, but that a lot of the kind of subsidy just leads to flab, complacency and inefficiency in the system as well as too many fingers in the pie.
I never did understand the merit of the tenant / landlord system where one or the other expects to be subsidised by the taxpayer. Surely there had to be some realism that if you are expecting two incomes rather than one from every acre then you either need more acres or you each need to take less. I don’t go rushing into the land agents office offering £150 an acre for crap land then expect to be bailed out by the taxpayer, but plenty do it would seem. It’s madness in my view.

The madness was changing from a headage based payment or acerage of crop grown system that should have had caps on payments made over to any sort of environmental payments system.
As soon as environmentalists got their grubby little hands on the position of power it became inevitable that English farmers were on a downward spiral to becoming irrelevant!

DrWazzock · Jan 22, 2022

I have watched big contract farming and FBT farming companies move in round here. The land isn’t great. It’s grade 3, difficult land. All were owner farmers until quite recently. It wasn’t the sort of land that would provide two incomes. Now everything seems to hauled for miles in and out on tractors and trailers. The machinery is huge and carries enough soil onto the road to make an allotment every time they visit. There is now this sort of permanent convoy of machinery bunging up the roads round here. How it ever pays is beyond me but no doubt they will soon be squealing that both they and the landlord can’t afford a new Range Rover every year and they need more taxpayer help. Well you have a choice in business. If it doesn’t pay, you don’t have to do it. Not a lot of sympathy to be honest.

holwellcourtfarm · Jan 22, 2022

midlandslad said:
I think the point is that the payment finds its way to the landlord either directly or via an inflated rent.

That's down to tenants, not landlords. If tenants all refused to pay then that would change.

There always someone who is determined to gain acreage at any cost though which allows landlords agents to play that game.

Henarar · Jan 22, 2022

Humble Village Farmer said:
Unless it's an aha

Don't even have to be AHA, I know for a couple of FBT's less than BPS, and it wouldn't be for nothing if there was no BPS.
its just a stupid blanket statement that some on TFF and other places come out with.

DrWazzock · Jan 22, 2022

holwellcourtfarm said:
That's down to tenants, not landlords. If tenants ask refused to pay then that would change.

There always someone who is determined to gain acreage at any cost though which allows landlords agents to play that game.

Agents full of gung ho nonsense talking the job up. FBT folks with broken calculators determined to be the billy big balls of the district. You can see it happen time after time. Completely unrealistic financial planning and expectations. Ironically with “scale” more folk trying to get a living of an acre than ever. Agents, consultants, tenants, landlords, DEFRA, RT, etc.

Jackov Altraids · Jan 22, 2022

Hindsight said:
NO JofA. The definition of an active farmer under BPS and SPS before was so wide anyone was eligible, irrespective of being a 'farmer' The area based entitlement system made it a payment for occupying land. That is a subtle difference from owning land.

Indeed.
I had intended to put active farmer in inverted commas to that end.
The point I was trying to make is that it at least showed intent in supporting farmers while it didn't prevent others from claiming.
The whole ethos of ELMS affecting farming is mainly;

creating or restoring 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat outside the protected site network, focusing on priority habitats as part of a wider set of land management changes providing extensive benefits
taking action to recover threatened, iconic or economically important species of animals, plants and fungi, and where possible to prevent human induced extinction or loss of known threatened species in England and the Overseas Territories
increasing woodland in England in line with our aspiration of 12% cover by 2060: this would involve planting 180,000 hectares by end of 2042

There is no appreciation for existing wildlife-rich habitat.
I think that indicates that unless you have a protected site, there is no harm in ploughing up anything/everything else.

Jackov Altraids · Jan 22, 2022

DrWazzock said:
I have watched big contract farming and FBT farming companies move in round here. The land isn’t great. It’s grade 3, difficult land. All were owner farmers until quite recently. It wasn’t the sort of land that would provide two incomes. Now everything seems to hauled for miles in and out on tractors and trailers. The machinery is huge and carries enough soil onto the road to make an allotment every time they visit. There is now this sort of permanent convoy of machinery bunging up the roads round here. How it ever pays is beyond me but no doubt they will soon be squealing that both they and the landlord can’t afford a new Range Rover every year and they need more taxpayer help. Well you have a choice in business. If it doesn’t pay, you don’t have to do it. Not a lot of sympathy to be honest.

And ELMS will see such practices increase.

Dave645 · Jan 22, 2022

Janet Hughes Defra said:
We're expecting it to include carbon credits, yes, and also schemes that already exist through water companies to reduce nitrate and phosphate pollution in watercourses and potentially biodiversity net gain credits. It will be up to you which of this you choose to participate in, if any, of course.

Ok your scaring me now.
https://cieem.net/ne-biodiversity-credits-scheme/

first carbon credits, how have they any value?
Unless a farm is carbon negative and actively locking up carbon in a long term and ongoing way, (trees) how is there anything to sell, If I took an option to increase soil carbon levels, and I did so for a few years after calculating my farm is net zero before that then maybe I can lock some carbon at some point that will max out how is that able to be sold in any meaningful way? Why would any environmentally goal driven person or agency encourage their sale. The fact that if DEFRA see field options as carbon capture, that then are worth credits, is scary.
There is no long term extra income from locking up carbon in in crop actions after a point carbon maxes out and you have nothing to sell.

these bio credits again a joke, I put some bio diversity in, sell the credits. what the scheme says it’s a developer buying credits to offset bio lost from development, who polices this stuff if I rip the bio diversity out do I hand the money back? If the developer wants to pay an annual fee, so I maintain it long term, and cope with the long term loss of income, what happens when the developer goes bust or stops paying?

Where is the bio diversity then, as basically I then look to sell it to someone else, and the loss of bio D the first company payed for is just lost, at best this is just a new form of green washing. . .

tepapa · Jan 22, 2022

BrianV said:
Virtually all of the English farming support has been hijacked by environmentalists with little or no interest in feeding our nation or sustaining English farmers, what do these idiots care if food becomes expensive to the poorest in our society just as long as they get their jollies at the weekends!

Its not up to us if government want to subsidise food for the population or not.
They have said they will put the budget into the environment. They worrying part is they are more concerned about carbon then they are food security. If we cut food production then Boris has said we'll just import it, simples. They want to control carbon emissions but there aren't any policies to cut aviation travel so it can't be that important.

Humble Village Farmer · Jan 22, 2022

tepapa said:
Its not up to us if government want to subsidise food for the population or not.
They have said they will put the budget into the environment. They worrying part is they are more concerned about carbon then they are food security. If we cut food production then Boris has said we'll just import it, simples. They want to control carbon emissions but there aren't any policies to cut aviation travel so it can't be that important.

That's the whole point. If we carry on burning carbon and it all goes tits up, the climate might not be suitable for growing food so easily.

Poorbuthappy · Jan 22, 2022

Humble Village Farmer said:
That's the whole point. If we carry on burning carbon and it all goes tits up, the climate might not be suitable for growing food so easily.

I think the point is it's green washing. Import more food, plant more trees, and appear to be helping the environment when in fact its doing the opposite.

Humble Village Farmer · Jan 22, 2022

Poorbuthappy said:
I think the point is it's green washing. Import more food, plant more trees, and appear to be helping the environment when in fact its doing the opposite.

That doesn't address my point.

tepapa · Jan 22, 2022

Humble Village Farmer said:
That's the whole point. If we carry on burning carbon and it all goes tits up, the climate might not be suitable for growing food so easily.

I've not heard anything about government stopping excess or unnecessary flights. So carbon can't be that important, infact they want to import food so that'll create carbon emissions.

Humble Village Farmer · Jan 22, 2022

tepapa said:
I've not heard anything about government stopping excess or unnecessary flights. So carbon can't be that important, infact they want to import food so that'll create carbon emissions.

It is about carbon. It's also about money though, which may seem less important if the climate does what some fear.

There's nothing to force individuals to take unnecessary flights. Not everyone has to be told what to do by the government.

DrWazzock · Jan 22, 2022

Thanks to low interest rates I’ve had to take an 80% reduction in my investment income over the last decade.
Somebody tell me why landlords who have invested in land shouldn’t take a similar haircut?
I have sympathy for tenants but landlords should know that such returns can go down as well as up. This is why it’s pointless banging on about loss of BPS. It was a land ownership subsidy more than anything. All it did was inflate costs. What’s the point of that?
The emphasis of funding now changes. You can either work with it or tread your own path.
Nothing stays the same forever.

BrianV · Jan 22, 2022

tepapa said:
Its not up to us if government want to subsidise food for the population or not.
They have said they will put the budget into the environment. They worrying part is they are more concerned about carbon then they are food security. If we cut food production then Boris has said we'll just import it, simples. They want to control carbon emissions but there aren't any policies to cut aviation travel so it can't be that important.

What is wrong is that English taxpayers subsidise Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland & those subsidies are now being used to undercut & disadvantage English farmers, this is not what the vast majority of English taxpayers expect their taxes to be used for, a relatively small minority of eco zealots now have an undue influence on this countries future!

New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page